The 6.8 and 6.5 aren't really practical. One, they're too unique for Special Operations. It's like leaving a big "We Wuz Here" sign on everything. And two, what happens when you're cut off from US supplies and need to borrow from your Aussie brothers? Uh oh, can't because they are using a different round.

"Unique for Special Forces"? Sure, if only SF-units would use them, then that would be a natural conclusion... However, if some Taliban-guys find some 5.56-brass in a very remote area, what would their conclusions be?

And if you are out of ammo, and your Aussie brothers dont have a spare gun, get one from the enemy... Then you will probably have a steady stream of ammo as well...

Just because it's a better round, doesn't mean it's the best round. Bigger ain't always better, boys.

Well, if bigger is better, I would surely promote 7.62 NATO, wouldnt I?

But if you are able to get 7.62 NATO-ish ballistics out of a 5.56-sized cartridge, with half the recoil of the 7.62, and a cartridge-weight just in the middle of 7.62 and 5.56, wouldnt that be preferrable?

I don't really hear a lot of shooters complaining seriously about the 5.56 knockdown power. Most guys know what it is capable of and deal with it. I know I do. It it the best thing out there? Nah. But it works great for us and other guys in special operations and I've personally never had a problem with it doing what I need it to do, and that's puttin' the bad guys on the ground. Biggest combat failure with the 5.56 is it not actually hitting the target.

I´m actually not very conserned with the short-range knockdown power of the 5.56, but rather with the penetration and range...

What is the difference between hosing a car with 5.56 and 7.62 NATO? And what if somebody is hiding behind a brick-wall?

I know that a lot of soldiers have been complaining about the range of their M16s in the mountains of Afghanistan, and wishing for the M14 to return to service...

I'm not a ballistics expert and I don't pretend to be, but I am a shooter and I've used the 5.56 with great success. As somebody that uses it for its intented purpose I'm happy with it. And frankly, I don't want to have to hump any more crap than I have to and with bigger rounds come heavier weight.

Neither am I, but I do have some physics-knowledge...
And about not wanting to hump more crap than you have to: You should welcome a new round, because it would most likely require a new generation of weapons... Especially if you get rid of the M249, and get IARs instead... Then you would actually get rid of a lot of dead-weight...

Originally Posted by dobrodan

That would only be partially true, usually in engagements shorter than 500m...

But the solution to that would be to field a heavier MMG-round... The .338 LM would IMO be a very capable round in that role, and in long-range sniping, as it is supposed to be more accurate than .50BMG, and have a flatter trajectory.

With .338 LM in the MMG-role, it could be possible to upgrade the HMG calibre from 12.7mm to 15.5mm, although that would be a very expensive move.

So your solution is actually to replace every single calibre in use with a larger one? That's going to get expensive. Also, nobody's complaining about the 7.62 or the 12.7. And good luck convincing NATO to change everything.

Also, what guns use 15.5mm? Don't you mean 14.5?

If you mean 15.5, can you provide some links to sites describing weapons that use this round?

So your solution is actually to replace every single calibre in use with a larger one? That's going to get expensive. Also, nobody's complaining about the 7.62 or the 12.7. And good luck convincing NATO to change everything.

Thats actually not what I ment... I would replace both 5.56 and 7.62 with the 6.5 Grendel. Then there would only be 6.5mm and 12.7mm in smallarms.

But, since 12.7mm ammunition is kind of heavy, especially in large amounts, It could be nice to have a lighter calibre with the same range and qualities, except for the payload...

And because 12.7mm doesnt really carry a very big payload, it could be nice to have a round which could outperform the 14.5mm...

The 15.5x115mm origins from the FN BRG-15

Originally Posted by dobrodan

"Unique for Special Forces"? Sure, if only SF-units would use them, then that would be a natural conclusion... However, if some Taliban-guys find some 5.56-brass in a very remote area, what would their conclusions be?

Could be anyone, SAS, Army SF, Marine Recon, SASR, or it could just be a platoon of regular old grunts. But if we're the only ones with it, they'll know right away.

And if you are out of ammo, and your Aussie brothers dont have a spare gun, get one from the enemy... Then you will probably have a steady stream of ammo as well...

Why would I want to use an AK when I have a perfectly good M4 with all the fixins? Borrow weapons? lol We're not playing paintball. You don't usually have a thousand different weapons with you. You've got what you need and nothing more. Why take away from their TO&E and potentially hurt their combat effectiveness by making them short when I can just bum some ammo and be gone?

I´m actually not very conserned with the short-range knockdown power of the 5.56, but rather with the penetration and range...

All I can go on are my own personal experiences with the 5.56. And it worked fine for us in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But we used it within its limits and didn't try to make it out to be something it isn't.

What is the difference between hosing a car with 5.56 and 7.62 NATO? And what if somebody is hiding behind a brick-wall?

Hiding behind a brick wall? You need tactics, not necessarily a heavier round.

I know that a lot of soldiers have been complaining about the range of their M16s in the mountains of Afghanistan, and wishing for the M14 to return to service...

Just about every unit has a DMR these days so when you really need to reach out and touch someone, he's your guy. It's not perfect but it works. If you aren't willing to accept the rounds limitations of course you're going to have failures. Just like I don't use a carbine as a rifle. I don't try to use 5.56 as 7.62.

I know things are different in conventional units than in ours and it's not always possible to cater to your mission but a lot of problems could be solved with more range time and a heavier grain.

5.56 is perfectly viable and practical, is it perfect? No. And I'm not saying that it is. But let's face it, people hype its problems.

Neither am I, but I do have some physics-knowledge...

And about not wanting to hump more crap than you have to: You should welcome a new round, because it would most likely require a new generation of weapons... Especially if you get rid of the M249, and get IARs instead... Then you would actually get rid of a lot of dead-weight...

Maybe I should welcome a new non-battlefield tested round. But I'm not going to. I've got a 6.8 carbine at home. It's a good round and I DO like it but I don't want to carry it with me in combat.

Originally Posted by dobrodan

Thats actually not what I ment... I would replace both 5.56 and 7.62 with the 6.5 Grendel. Then there would only be 6.5mm and 12.7mm in smallarms.

You also mentioned the Lapua Magnum round for snipers and medium machine guns.

Originally Posted by dobrodan

But, since 12.7mm ammunition is kind of heavy, especially in large amounts, It could be nice to have a lighter calibre with the same range and qualities, except for the payload...

And because 12.7mm doesnt really carry a very big payload, it could be nice to have a round which could outperform the 14.5mm...

The 15.5x115mm origins from the FN BRG-15

That thing is 60kg without the mount. Why not use a modern 20mm cannon, or the XM307 25mm Airbursting Weapon System?

Well, I´m no SF-soldier, and if you are perfectly happy with the 5.56 round, then it is probably the best for you.

I would, however, prefer the increased range and penetration compared to 5.56... I have actually fired less than 100rds of 5.56, but I do know what the difference is between 5.56 and 7.62 when engaging a target behind cover...
And I would not want 5.56 instead of 7.62 for that reason.
But if i could get 7.62 performance out of a lighter round, I would take it straight away, because 7.62 ammo isn´t exactly lightweight.

Why would I want to use an AK when I have a perfectly good M4 with all the fixins? Borrow weapons? lol We're not playing paintball. You don't usually have a thousand different weapons with you. You've got what you need and nothing more. Why take away from their TO&E and potentially hurt their combat effectiveness by making them short when I can just bum some ammo and be gone?

Where did I state that you should bring along a lot of weapons?
What I tried to say was that If you are running out of ammo, you should try to get hold of an enemy weapon with ammo... That would be the rule, no matter what calibre you and your mates use... If you are running out of ammo, the chances are that your mates are too... And then all the bells and whistles that are mounted on your guns won`t help, unless you call in an airstrike...

Hiding behind a brick wall? You need tactics, not necessarily a heavier round.

Well, sometimes tactics don´t help because both you and your mates are pinned down, or unable to move to a better position...

Maybe I should welcome a new non-battlefield tested round. But I'm not going to. I've got a 6.8 carbine at home. It's a good round and I DO like it but I don't want to carry it with me in combat.

A non-battlefield tested round will actually have to go to a battlefield in order to be battlefield tested.

You also mentioned the Lapua Magnum round for snipers and medium machine guns.

What is a MMG? It is not a GPMG, although many countries employ the GPMG in the MMG role...

And the LM-round is actually already in use amongst NATO-snipers.

That thing is 60kg without the mount. Why not use a modern 20mm cannon, or the XM307 25mm Airbursting Weapon System?

Sure... I don´t say that 15.5mm is the best solution... But it would increase capabilities over 12.7mm...

MMG means medium machinegun, and it is a gun that is supposed to fire cartridges larger than 7.62mm. I am not so sure about the use of the .338 LM round as a GPMG round. It is far more powerful, yes, but do not forget that you can engage targets at 800 metres with a GPMG due to the volume of fire you can put out. However, target identification at that range is somewhat problematic, so the benfits of the increased range would be offset by the difficulty in target ID at the longer ranges. .338 Lapua Magnum is a precision round, custom designed to allow the use of a rifle that is far lighter than present .50 BMG sniper rifles at comparable ranges. The use of this round would also mean heavier, more expensive rounds, less ammo carried per gun, faster gun and barrrel wear (muzzle velocity is far higher). The US already had the 30.06 calibre during WW II and realized that it was overkill, so they shortened the cartridge to create the 7.62mm NATO calibre. There is no reason to make the same mistake again.
As for 5.56, please remember that many studies were done and they all found the same thing. More than 90% of infantry engagements are fought at ranges of 200 metres or less. At that range, 7.62mm battle rifles are definitely overkill, a 6.5mm Grendel might be overkill as well. Let's be a but serious here. How many people realluy believe that the 5.56 round is ineffective inside of, say 250 metres? As much as I dislike the calibre, I think it works.

Dean.

Originally Posted by Joker

The Point is: You said SF don´t have other ammo than normal troops and that is wrong. They have and thats a fact!!!
And if you know the Mk 262 why you don´t know that it is used by SF units???
And why is NATO the problem? The Mk 262 is a normal 5,56X45 with only a heavyer bullet, you can shoot it from any rifle with this caliber without any changes!!!!!!
And If US going to 6,8 SPC why the rest of the NATO has to adopt it?? I think that the 6,8 SPC will be a good round and hopfully germany will adop this round too but why it´s a must for all NATO members???



Joker

I never said that SF don't have other types of ammo and if I did I was mistaken.

Also, the reason NATO must agree to using 6.8 SPC as a standard is because all NATO countries have assault rilfes that fire 5.56mm and the reason for this is that when NATO countrys go to war they can use eachothers ammo. If the U.S. is using just 6.8 SPC and lets say the UK is using 5.56mm then how are they going use our ammo if they run out? This is one of the reasons the U.S. went from 7,62mm to 5.56mm as standard ammo.

Originally Posted by dobrodan

Well, I´m no SF-soldier, and if you are perfectly happy with the 5.56 round, then it is probably the best for you.

I would, however, prefer the increased range and penetration compared to 5.56... I have actually fired less than 100rds of 5.56, but I do know what the difference is between 5.56 and 7.62 when engaging a target behind cover...
And I would not want 5.56 instead of 7.62 for that reason.
But if i could get 7.62 performance out of a lighter round, I would take it straight away, because 7.62 ammo isn´t exactly lightweight.



Where did I state that you should bring along a lot of weapons?
What I tried to say was that If you are running out of ammo, you should try to get hold of an enemy weapon with ammo... That would be the rule, no matter what calibre you and your mates use... If you are running out of ammo, the chances are that your mates are too... And then all the bells and whistles that are mounted on your guns won`t help, unless you call in an airstrike...



Well, sometimes tactics don´t help because both you and your mates are pinned down, or unable to move to a better position...



A non-battlefield tested round will actually have to go to a battlefield in order to be battlefield tested.

5.56mm has better penetration than 7.62mm.